Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Continental Partners bought a lot with two building pads from Yellowstone Development that was part of the Yellowstone Club subdivision. The purchase and sale agreement included an assurance that the houses Continental intended to build on the lot would have ski-in and gravity ski-out access built by the Yellowstone Club. During construction, Continental sold the homes to separate buyers, including the managing member of WLW Realty Partners, LLC. Before construction on the ski-out access on the two homes had begun, the Yellowstone Club filed for bankruptcy protection. The subsequent owners of Yellowstone Club informed the new owners that ski-out access to the homes would not be constructed. WLW Realty filed this action against Continental, alleging, inter alia, negligent misrepresentation and violation of the Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). After a bench trial, the district court entered judgment for WLW Realty. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred by (1) imposing liability on Continental for negligent misrepresentation, as WLW Realty failed to satisfy the first and second elements of the tort; and (2) finding that Continental had violated the MCPA, as Continental did not engage in unfair or deceptive acts or practices. View "WLW Realty Partners, LLC v. Continental Partners VIII, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was involved in a vehicle collision with another driver, who admitted fault. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff’s vehicle was insured with Farmers Insurance Exchange under a policy that included underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage. After Plaintiff received medical treatment, Plaintiff filed a complaint requesting “all sums due and owing” under her insurance policy with Farmers. During the course of the litigation, Farmers extended settlement offers to Plaintiff, but the case did not settle. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. Thereafter, Plaintiff moved for attorney fees and nontaxable costs under the insurance exception to the American Rule. The district court denied Plaintiff’s motion, concluding that the insurance exception did not apply to Plaintiff’s attorney fees and related costs. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court incorrectly interpreted Montana law when it relied on only the circumstances surrounding the filing of Plaintiff’s complaint to conclude that Plaintiff did not meet the insurance exception. Remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Farmers forced Plaintiff to assume the burden of legal action to obtain the full benefit of her UIM policy, thus entitling her to attorney fees under the insurance exception. View "Mlekush v. Farmers Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, while in the course of her employment, was injured while the van in which she was riding was struck by a bus owned by Defendant. Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for accident-related injuries. The district court granted Plaintiff partial summary judgment on the issue of liability and ordered that the issues of causation and damages would be determined at trial. The jury returned a verdict for Plaintiff for $59,500. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial. The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the district court abused its discretion when it admitted into evidence the opinions and reports of doctors that did not testify at trial. View "Reese v. Stanton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was on duty as an officer at a bank on December 11, 2004 when he had a physical altercation with Defendant. Plaintiff filed this action seeking damages against Defendant on March 18, 2009. The jury returned a defense verdict, finding that Plaintiff’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The district court entered judgment in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in allowing into evidence a letter from a medical doctor regarding Plaintiff’s medical history and diagnosis; (2) Plaintiff was not entitled to a new trial on the ground that the district court erred in instructing the jury on the statute of limitations governing Plaintiff’s claim; and (3) the jury verdict was supported by substantial evidence. View "Siebken v. Voderberg" on Justia Law

After Buyers purchased a home, they discovered mold growing in the basement. Buyers sued the Sellers’ real estate agent (Agent), alleging negligence. Specifically, Buyers claimed that Agent was obligated to discover adverse material facts about the property and to disclose those facts to them. The district court granted summary judgment for Agent, concluding that the Agent had no duty to Buyers to discover adverse material facts about the property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Agent was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the question of duty because Buyers’ negligence claim against her was premised upon inspection and discovery duties that do not exist. View "Watterud v. Uhren" on Justia Law

The Gallatin Gateway County Water & Sewer District sought a permit for a proposed wastewater treatment system. The Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) granted a wastewater discharge permit. Gateway Village, LLC, which owns land adjacent to and down-gradient from the proposed activities, requested judicial review of DEQ’s issuance of the permit and alleged that the discharge of wastewater into groundwater extending under its surface property would constitute a common law trespass. The district court determined that further environmental analysis was necessary and remanded the case to DEQ. The court also denied DEQ’s and the District’s motions for summary judgment or dismissal of Gateway Village’s trespass claim and denied Gateway Village’s request for attorneys’ fees. The Supreme Court (1) vacated the portion of the district court’s order addressing the trespass claim, holding that, having remanded the case, the district court should have declined to address the trespass claim; and (2) affirmed the district court’s decision to deny Gateway Village’s request for attorney’s fees. View "Gateway Village, LLC v. Mont. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality" on Justia Law

Plaintiff brought this negligence action for injuries she allegedly sustained her her vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Defendant. After a trial, the jury returned a general verdict in favor of Plaintiff, awarding her $3,665 in total damages. Plaintiff filed a motion for a mistrial and for a new trial, arguing that she was prejudiced by Defendant’s failure to disclose that some of Defendant’s photographic evidence depicted damage from a separate accident. The Supreme Court agreed with Plaintiff and reversed, holding that defense counsel’s misrepresentation regarding the photographs constituted an irregularity in the proceeding and deprived Plaintiff of a fair trial. View "O Connor v. George" on Justia Law

Prior to July 2011, St. Peter’s Hospital’s Medical Staff granted privileges to qualified, non-employee radiologists, including the physicians of Montana Interventional and Diagnostic Radiology Specialists, PLLC (MIDRS), a professional limited liability company whose members are engaged in the practice of radiology. In July 2011, the Hospital closed its radiology department to all non-employee physicians regardless of qualification. MIDRS brought this action against the Hospital, alleging intentional interference with prospective advantage and unfair trade practices. The district court granted the Hospital’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the complaint as untimely, concluding that MIDRS filed its complaint outside of the applicable statutes of limitation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the accrual of MIDRS’ claims could not be determined from the pleadings alone and that further development of the record was necessary. View "Mont. Interventional & Diagnostic Radiology Specialists, PPLC v. St. Peter’s Hosp." on Justia Law

The parties in this case owned adjoining parcels of land adjacent to Rock Creek in Carbon County. Plaintiffs brought this action in 2008, alleging that Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs’ water right by erecting a pond, engaging in significant construction activities, and placing rip-rap and fill in wet areas without protecting the flow of water onto Plaintiffs’ property. After a bench trial, the district court granted judgment in favor of Defendants, concluding that Defendants had not interfered with Plaintiffs’ water right, that Defendants could only prove their case through expert testimony, which the court previously excluded, and that Defendants’ activities on Plaintiffs' property did not unreasonably interfere with Plaintiffs’ water rights. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment in favor of Defendants and the award of attorney fees against Plaintiffs, holding (1) the district court erred in granting Defendants’ motion in limine to exclude Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses from testifying at trial; and (2) because the experts were wrongfully excluded, the result of the trial was tainted and must be reversed. View "Sharbono v. Cole" on Justia Law

The town of Opportunity is a rural community east of a former copper smelter operated by the Anaconda Company. Between 1884 and 1980, the smelter emitted smoke and fumes containing arsenic and other toxic materials, and particles of these materials settled on the surrounding lands. In 2008, Appellants, property owners in and around the town, filed this action seeking damages for the cost of restoring their properties to their original state. Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), the successor in interest to the Anaconda Company, moved for summary judgment on statute of limitations grounds. The district court granted summary judgment for ARCO on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) application of the continuing tort doctrine based on environmental contamination does not require evidence of that the contamination is migrating; (2) Appellants’ claims of continuing nuisance and trespass are not time-barred if a finder of fact determines that the contamination is reasonably abatable; (3) the district court properly granted summary judgment to ARCO on Appellants’ claims of unjust enrichment and constructive fraud; and (4) the district court applied the incorrect statute of limitations to Appellants’ claim of wrongful occupation. View "Christian v. Atlantic Richfield Co." on Justia Law